OECDhttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/732/all
enThe Rush to Ratify: BC Rejected International Investment Deal in '98 and Should Do So Againhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/25/rush-ratify-bc-rejected-international-investment-deal-98-and-should-do-so-again
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/IMG_0137.JPG?itok=_LXf4Vpb" width="200" height="200" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This past weekend trade investment lawyer, <a href="http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty/full-time/gus-van-harten">Gus Van Harten</a>, spent his time in his basement, rifling through old files. He knew that somewhere, buried in piles of international investment and legal trade documents, there was the answer to this one nagging question he couldn't shake: hadn't British Columbia already refused an investor-state treaty like the China-Canada Investment Deal once before? And wasn't that rejection because the trade deal was '<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/what-if-the-canada-china-investment-treaty-is-unconstitutional/article4629972/">unconstitutional</a>?'</p>
<div>
And there the answer to his question lay: in a <a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/mai/1998/1report/index.htm#contents">1998 special legislative report</a> <span class="caps">BC</span> published on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment"><span class="caps">OCED</span>'s then-proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (<span class="caps">MAI</span>)</a>. In this <a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/mai/1998/1report/index.htm#contents">document</a>, a <span class="caps">BC</span> Special Committee outlines why an investor-state mechanism like <span class="caps">MAI</span> - which is essentially the same as the proposed China-Canada Investment Deal - is dangerous for provinces determined to protect their jurisdictional rights when it comes to governmental sovereignty, natural resources, First Nations, environmental protection and human and labour rights. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The legislative committee recommended that <strong>“when negotiating the <span class="caps">MAI</span> or any future investment treaty, the federal government must ensure that the agreement does not apply to matters within provincial jurisdiction, including local government measures, without the express consent of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia…If the federal government fails to provide for such consent, then the provincial government should explore all means, including legal action, to defend vigorously its own jurisdictional rights and those of local governments to represent the interests of British Columbians.”</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
According to this logic, British Columbians and all of our elected provincial officials should be up in arms over the proposed China deal. </div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<div>
When Van Harten found the <span class="caps">BC</span> legislative committee report he was surprised to see the special committee made essentially the same request in '98 as he is now: hold off on the agreement until the implications of the deal, constitutional and otherwise, can be fully assessed. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
What is significant about the <span class="caps">MAI</span> and the international review the agreement underwent in 1998, is how thoroughly it exposed the dangers of such a deal. At the time, then French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin spurned the deal, <a href="http://www.canadians.org/archive/MAI.html">saying</a> “it does not seem wise to allow private interests to chew away at the sovereignty of states.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Another negotiating official characterized the agreement and its inherent lack of transparency as a “political time-bomb.” This sounds all too familiar.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Picture%203.png" style="width: 317px; height: 238px; " /><img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Picture%204.png" style="width: 147px; height: 196px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
On October 10, Van Harten urged <span class="caps">BC</span> Premier Christy Clark to take action against the China-Canada Investment Treaty, to put pressure on the federal government to delay the agreement's ratification until the full consequences of such a deal for British Columbia - the province at the centre of a national pipeline battle that is in part <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/20/enbridge-sinopec-idUSN2013274620110120">backed by Chinese investors</a> - are known. He penned an <a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/mai/1998/1report/index.htm#contents">additional letter</a> to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister Edward Fast on October 12.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
By the time Van Harten found the <a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/mai/1998/1report/index.htm#contents">1998 report</a> on Monday, October 22, he had received no reply. Unearthing the document - which sheds new light on <span class="caps">BC</span>'s position in the rush to ratify <span class="caps">FIPA</span> - Van Harten redoubled his efforts to attract Premier Clark's attention.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In a follow-up letter, Van Harten outlines a number of relevant passages from the report (include the one quoted above), suggesting Premier Clark take into account the relevant insights of the past:</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“<a href="http://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/36thParl/mai/1998/1report/part_iv.htm#respecting">Respecting Provincial Government Jurisdiction</a>”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>“It must be emphasized that provincial governments are not simply another set of “stakeholders” to be consulted by the federal government en route to treaty signature and implementation. <strong>Under the Canadian constitution, the federal government is incapable of unilaterally implementing international treaty obligations in areas that fall within provincial jurisdiction. Nor is it acceptable for the federal government to use its treaty-making powers to do an end run around the federal-provincial division of powers or in a way that diminishes Canadian federalism and democracy.</strong></em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Investor rights of the scale and breadth contemplated in the <span class="caps">MAI</span> would affect many matters that fall partly or exclusively within provincial legislative jurisdiction. <strong>Some of the more important to British Columbians include: the management and conservation of natural resources; health care, education, and other social services; the regulation of property and civil rights in the province; and municipal institutions and governments.</strong></em></div>
<div>
<em>….</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em><strong>How is it that the federal government can expose provincial measures to binding international arbitration without the province's consent? </strong>… Who will pay if a provincial measure is found to violate the federal government's treaty obligations? If the provincial government maintains an inconsistent measure, might the federal government be required to pay ongoing damages? Setting aside the jurisdictional issues, <strong>is it fiscally responsible for the federal government to negotiate an agreement that exposes it to open-ended liability for provincial government measures? </strong>And, faced with an adverse ruling, <strong>what steps might the federal government take to try to force provinces or municipalities to remove offending measures?</strong></em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>The cost to Canadian taxpayers to defend provincial and local government measures against challenge and to vet future measures for potential inconsistency also cannot be ignored. Nor, just as importantly, can Canadian ignore <strong>the cost to democracy of the chilling effect such potential threats exert on provincial and local governments' ability to govern.</strong></em></div>
<div>
<em>….</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>… the committee's view is that <strong>if British Columbia's support is not explicitly given, then the federal government should negotiate only with respect to federal measures.</strong> In the committee's view, if the federal government fails to gain the express consent of the Legislative Assembly, then<strong> the Province must vigorously defend its authority on behalf of all British Columbians</strong>.”</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
Van Harten had this to add in his plea to Premier Clark:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
On reviewing this material, I was struck by its direct confirmation of the point that <strong>the <span class="caps">BC</span> government must take legal action if it is to defend its constitutional position from potentially irreparable harm due to ratification of the Canada-China treaty</strong> on or about October 31. All of the questions that it raises, as highlighted above, are directly relevant to the Canada-China investment treaty. This treaty clearly requires closer study before its legal consequences are locked in by the federal government for 31 years. <strong>The federal government appears to lack constitutional authority to conclude the treaty but this will make no difference, from the perspective of international law and China's legal position vis a vis Canada, once the treaty is ratified.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
With great respect, I urge you please to take steps to ensure that the federal government does not ratify this treaty without resolution of the constitutional implications. Other than perhaps a First Nation, it strikes me as unfeasible for any other person or organization to be able to obtain an injunction in time due to requirements of standing. If ratified, the treaty will change fundamentally the position of provincial legislative, executive, and judicial powers in relation to any Chinese-owned asset in the country. <strong>This is not just a trade and economic issue but also, fundamentally, a constitutional matter</strong>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
I stress that, if the federal government is unwilling to delay ratification, <strong>you would need to seek an injunction this week to delay ratification</strong> until the treaty's constitutional implications can be resolved in Canadian courts as necessary.</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Van Harten is not the only voice demanding a democratic review of the China-Canada Investment Treaty. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In this forceful one-minute clip, Green Party leader Elizabeth May outlines the details of the agreement to the house; delivering the only <span class="caps">FIPA</span> primer members of the house will receive.<br />
</div>
<div>
<object height="375" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-bmPfqJ0lk8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="375" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-bmPfqJ0lk8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="500"></embed></object></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Yesterday I asked <span class="caps">NDP</span> <span class="caps">MLA</span> Carole James what the connection was between recent <a href="http://defendourcoast.ca/">Defend Our Coast</a> actions and <span class="caps">FIPA</span>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<object height="309" width="550"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFokr8X_HKQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="309" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFokr8X_HKQ?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="550"></embed></object></div>
<div>
<span class="caps">NDP</span> leader Thomas Mulcair recently distributed this list of Conservative <span class="caps">MP</span>'s who are members of The Standing Committee on International Trade to his listserv.<br /><br />
You can weigh in on the conversation by telling these pivotal committee members how you feel about the rush to ratify <span class="caps">FIPA</span>, despite the absence of provincial or First Nations consultation.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
Rob Merrifield <a href="mailto:rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca">rob.merrifield@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Ron Cannan <a href="mailto:ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca">ron.cannan@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Russ Hiebert <a href="mailto:russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca">russ.hiebert@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Ed Holder <a href="mailto:ed.holder@parl.gc.ca">ed.holder@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Gerald Keddy <a href="mailto:gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca">gerald.keddy@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Bev Shipley <a href="mailto:bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca">bev.shipley@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
<div>
Devinder Shory <a href="mailto:devinder.shory@parl.gc.ca">devinder.shory@parl.gc.ca</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6612';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6612"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10525">FIPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10436">Gus Van Harten</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10494">China-Canada Investment Treaty</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10713">International Investment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/732">OECD</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10714">MAI</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10715">Multilateral Agreement on Investment</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10716">Premier Christy Clark</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10702">Defend Our Coast</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10542">sovereignty</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9104">Federal government</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6577">pipelines</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3687">trade</a></div></div></div>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:56:53 +0000Carol Linnitt6612 at http://www.desmogblog.comOil Industry Spins Subsidies Discussion In Wake of President Obama's State of the Union Addresshttp://www.desmogblog.com/president-acts-presidential-ending-oil-subsidies-state-union
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/g20-protest-stop-oil-subsidies.jpg?itok=kjvdQ333" width="200" height="306" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>In his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address" target="_blank">State of the Union address</a>, President Obama urged Congress to stop subsidizing oil companies and set a goal for 80% of electricity generated by 2035 to come from “clean” energy sources. While there is much dispute over some of the technologies included in the “clean” category, the President is proposing some wise investments in genuine cleantech. To pay for low-carbon energy alternatives, the President <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201" target="_blank">proposed</a> $302 million for solar energy research and development (up 22 percent); $123 million for wind energy (a 53 percent increase); and $55 million for geothermal energy (up 25 percent).<br /><br />But fossil fuels subsidies are holding back growth in burgeoning clean energy industries, which face a momumental challenge to compete with entrenched industries that receive far greater government subsidies. <br /><br />And when it comes to oil subsidies, the President says enough is enough:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”<!--break--></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Building on that speech, in about two weeks, President Obama will release his 2011 budget (which covers the 2012 fiscal year beginning October 1st, 2011), which is expected to include the end to some $4 billion a year in oil and possibly gas subsidies. A fossil fuel subsidy, according to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html?_r=1&amp;ref=science" target="_blank"><span class="caps">NY</span> Times</a>, colloquially refers to incentives, tax credits, preferences and loan guarantees. Over a 10-year period, if the President succeeds in eliminating both oil and gas subsidies, the <span class="caps">US</span> will <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201" target="_blank">save approximately $36.5 billion</a>.</p>
<p>That’s a great move to cut truly wasteful spending on a mature industry that is collecting massive profits on its own. But this figure only scratches the surface of dirty energy subsidies. In September 2009, the <a href="http://www.eli.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Law Institute</a> released a <a href="http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf" target="_blank">study [<span class="caps">PDF</span>]</a> stating that from 2002-2008, federal subsidies for fossil fuels and ‘renewable’ energies with high global warming pollution content totaled some $72 billion.</p>
<p>Assuming the President follows through with his suggested oil subsidy cuts, this will build on his earlier efforts to do the same thing in <a href="http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/FFSubsidiesFY2011.jpg" target="_blank">last year’s budget</a>, as well as international momentum sustained at the G20 Summits in Pittsburgh (2009) and Toronto (2010). In Pittsburgh, Obama and other world leaders <a href="http://www.pittsburghsummit.gov/mediacenter/129639.htm" target="_blank">noted that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, distort markets, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with climate change. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (<span class="caps">OECD</span>) and the <span class="caps">IEA</span> have found that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 by ten percent.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At that meeting, they committed to:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/USSubmissionG20.pdf" target="_blank"><span class="caps">US</span> submission</a> to the G20 in Toronto also included a phasing out process of fossil fuel subsidies.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, removing the subsidies will not have significant financial impact on energy companies, with $36.5 billion accounting for a mere 1% of expected domestic oil and gas revenues in the 10-year period.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, in spite of the negligible implications for energy companies, the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists came out against the President’s proposal.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.devonenergy.com" target="_blank">Devon Energy Corporation</a> spokesman Bill Whitsitt <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201" target="_blank">said</a> that repealing the tax breaks would “slow down a real revolution” in natural gas exploration – <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf" target="_blank">not such a bad thing</a> according to <span class="caps">EPA</span> figures.</p>
<p>Charles Drevna, President of the Oil Refiners Trade Group <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budget-oil-idUSTRE6103RM20100201" target="_blank">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We applauded the president last week during his State of the Union address for stating his desire to increase domestic energy production.” <br /><br />“The additional taxes on our businesses run counter to those stated objectives, however, and will do nothing to stimulate increased investment.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jack Gerard, President of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute">American Petroleum Institute</a>, also opposed the end of subsidies to his industry. He, however, offered some <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/earth/01subsidy.html" target="_blank">spectacular spin</a> on the subject:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>This is a tired old argument we’ve been hearing for two years now…” <br /><br /><strong>“The federal government by no stretch of the imagination subsidizes the oil industry. The oil industry subsidizes the federal government at a rate of $95 million a day.”</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the oil industry’s rhetorical gymnastics, nothing could be further from the truth. The oil industry has received immense support from taxpayers, all while polluting our air and water as we saw with the Exxon Valdez disaster and the <span class="caps">BP</span> blowout, to name just a few examples.</p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '5110';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=5110"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/huffington-post">huffington post</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/reuters">reuters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/732">OECD</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1220">International Energy Agency</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5895">Environmental Law Institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5896">G20</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5897">Devon Energy Corporation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5898">Oil refineries trade group</a></div></div></div>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:42:06 +0000TJ Scolnick5110 at http://www.desmogblog.comCrude, Simple and Impoverished Thinkinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/crude-simple-and-impoverished-thinking
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/images/blog-feature-1179.jpg?itok=qC2v5S1H" width="85" height="139" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>CanWest Global Terence Corcoran's most <a href="http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=63cc3a25-7a24-4a40-a58f-471f76cef599">recent column</a>, criticizing Prime Minister Stephen Harper for acknowledging Canada's poor environmental record, sets a new standard for information distortion. Corcoran dismisses Harper's newfound environmental awareness, saying that it is based on the “misleading indicators, warped assumptions and outrageous conclusions” contained in a David Suzuki Foundation report entitled <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org/_pvw370829/files/WOL/OECD-EngExec.pdf"><em>The Maple Leaf in the <span class="caps">OECD</span></em></a>.</p><p>Where “misleading,” “warped” and “outrageous” are concerned, you could hardly top Corcoran's cherry-picking of Mexico as the key comparison country that he plucks from the Suzuki report. He uses Mexico (which ranked 13th) to argue that Canada scores badly in its environmental performance (28th) because it has a robust economy. He presents the Harper/Suzuki argument thusly:</p><blockquote><p>“Economic progress, symbolized by the ability of people to own motor cars and travel about, live well, produce energy, keep warm and keep cool, leads to environmental failure that must be corrected. Economic stagnation and reversal produces (environmental) success. Mexico good, Canada bad.”</p></blockquote><p>But the Suzuki report addresses this point in its first page - in fact, in<strong> the third paragraph of its executive summary</strong>:</p><blockquote><p>“The top 10 countries in environmental performance fall into two groups. The first group includes Turkey, Poland, and the Slovak Republic, which have high environmental rankings because they have relatively weak economies, and therefore lower per capita resource use and emissions. <strong>The more relevant group to Canada</strong> includes Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Italy, and the Netherlands, which have high per capita incomes. These countries have high environmental rankings because they have strong environmental policies.”</p></blockquote><p>Clearly, these seven “relevant” countries have found a way to maintain thriving economies <em>and</em> a good environmental record. Just as clearly, Canada compares badly, faring worse on this list to every G8 country save the United States.</p><p> But for whatever reason, Corcoran can't or won't acknowledge that reality. Rather, his column concludes that the only way to preserve a healthy environment is “to step back into the crude, simple and impoverished world of centuries past.”</p><p>There is no reason to assume that this logical misrepresentation is the product of wilful distortion rather than just ideological blindness. But as an ideologue, Corcoran is running out of allies. Politically, even the Conservatives have abandoned his illogical position. He is a preacher who has watched all his parishioners leave the church.</p><p>So, we can assume that he is growing increasingly desperate - increasingly lonely - but that does not relieve him of the responsibility to present information in a fair and accurate way. That's a mark he missed by a wide margin on this outing. </p></div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '1179';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=1179"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/731">david suzuki foundation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/732">OECD</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/733">Canwest global</a></div></div></div>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:25:42 +0000Richard Littlemore1179 at http://www.desmogblog.com